Legal Opinion
Callus v. 10 East Fortieth Street Building, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided December 12, 1944No. 143PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRANK, Circuit Judge.
The plaintiffs’ suit is based on the theory that they are “engaged in the production of goods for [interstate] commerce.” They can not effectively contend that they are “engaged in [interstate] commerce.” McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 63 S.Ct. 1248, 1250, 87 L.Ed. 1538. It is already well-established that, where the tenants of a building are engaged in manufacturing, the service employees of the building come under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638. And we have recognized that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- United States v. American Trucking AssociationsSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Armour & Co. v. WantockSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- A. B. Kirschbaum Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- McLeod v. ThrelkeldSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- 10 East 40th Street Building, Inc. v. CallusSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Skidmore v. John J. Casale, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
- Fleming v. PostCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
- Ellis Campbell, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue v. Cen-Tex, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1967
- Baldwin v. Emigrant Industrial Sav. BankCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.